Why would they, the interface wouldn't have to change, would it?
you said mario kart X. that's vague. i was talking about the very explicit name of "mario kart 10"
That I don't know. Theoretically, it should be able to do more than just Kracken, albeit not as efficiently. For Drake I expect gdeflate to be commonly used
Doing mandatory installation would wipe 512GB very quickly. I expect Nintendo's own games to double in size. Third parties? Mandatory external storage
There’s nothing to this. March 27 isn’t a day Nintendo would release.
Roman numerals.
obviously not every game with an X for its subtitle is to represent being the tenth entry in a series, unless that's what you think mega man x stands for as an example
But that's exactly why it works. It sidesteps the issue completely.
10 or X... I believe my point remains. Average consumers aren't counting.
they're going to be counting when the most recent mario kart game released is called mario kart 8 deluxe...
Ordinary people don't give a shit. They couldn't name the 6 Mario Karts before Mario Kart 7
Calling it MK 10 or X or whatever won't cause any confusion or lose them a single sale. It's the tenth MK game.
Yes they can call the next game Mario Kart 10 lol. Companies have skipped numbers before. Don’t make the consumer seem like their idiots now. Mario Kart sells on its name alone. Everyone and their mother will know Mario Kart X or 10 is the next game after Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
If it's ever going to happen, now would be the right time.
Imagine all the people who were intimidated when they saw Mario Kart 64 and realized they didn’t play the first 63 games.
Everyone looking at Mario Kart 7 in disgust for not acknowledging the existence of the arcade games in its numbering.
Nintendo will tell it costumers Mario Kart 9 is Mario Kart Tour(since we see a lot of it tracks on Mario Kart 8 Deluxe,in a way Nintendo consider Mario Kart Tour as a mainline Mario Kart)
The interface would probably need to change to allow for the higher bandwidth of the memory? I dunno how exactly all that works, but it's hard to imagine that you could use the identical card components and card reader components and just slot in a completely different kind of storage technology.
Well, if theyre as cheap as theyre made out to be they can probably pay quite a hefty fine and still make a profit. I would go with one of these 2 explanations:
March is most likely for the announcement as opposed to the release, it’s just too soon.
If the rumors of December (or January?) production comes true, then March wouldn't be too soon. But of course, rumors are exactly that.. rumors.
The interface doesn't care what form the data takes. It won't be able to use the higher bandwidth, no, but it doesn't need to.
Ya... missed a lot of those too... however I'm pretty sure I caught all of the 98 Tetris games!
If production starts by around January or so, they could definitely reveal it in February to early March & release the system in September (if the reveal is February, March can be the certification submission deadline for launch). Remember, they still have Mario Wonder & accompanying Switch 1s to sell this holiday season. no reason for Nintendo to potentially hurt those sales if they don’t have to. And getting production going earlier in 2024 would allow Nintendo to have ample Switch 2 stock upon release, as previously reported this past summer.
The other part of it is that while this paper came out a few years ago it probably took a while to fully scale up to full production, considering they apparently just opened up full production lines earlier this year:
www.techgoing.com
This!
I would say something here but it'd just send this discussion into a circle, one this forum have already went through many times before. LOL.
Just for the record, the estimates for DLSS in this thread have always been done with this understanding. And it's wasn't just guessing; people have tested it on other hardware, or referenced the big table of execution time estimates Nvidia publishes where you can see it going up to several milliseconds.
There's no serious possibility of Nintendo switching storage technologies mid-generation even if the memory was 100 times cheaper. Getting it up and running is an R&D expenditure that is only justified when building new hardware, same with a lot of things. On top of that, waiting for new hardware to deploy an advancement in tech helps differentiate it.
ieeexplore.ieee.org
Yeah if you look at footage of botw and totk running 4k 60fps on emulators it is amazing, would be great to have that on switch 2
Doesnt make sense to me. If they can make back that R&D investment quite quickly by selling a few million game cards, you would want to make the investment as early as possible. Would make zero difference to the end user, Switch woudnt be able to utilize the higher speed anyway,
Also here is the paper I was thinking of, it's actually from 2017- (courtesy of @Thraktor )
A 128Gb (MLC)/192Gb (TLC) single-gate vertical channel (SGVC) architecture 3D NAND using only 16 layers with robust read disturb, long-retention and excellent scaling capability
We have successfully developed a 128Gb MLC (or 192Gb TLC) 3D NAND Flash using 16-layer SGVC architecture. The produced memory density is 1.6 Gb/mm <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> for MLC or 2.4 Gb/mm <sup...
Requires a subscription though. This is a relatively exciting excerpt (if true):
Basically the idea is, the more layers you have the more storage you have and the less the storage costs per GB, since cost scales much more with area than volume. Not sure if the exact costs will be the same as in 2017 ($0.04 per GB which would be ~$5 for 128GB) but the concept is the same- more layers equals larger yet cheaper storage.
My mistake, thank you.
